Lewandowsky: Backdating

Steve McIntyre has a post on the Lewandowsky affair. It is a key one and a summary might be useful.

The notorious ‘Fury’ paper from the Lewandowsky group is in chronic ‘temporary withdrawal’¹. The ‘Moon’ paper has data issues that invalidate the paper.

When questioned how he reported on skeptics in the Moon paper without surveying them, Lewandowsky said he had asked skeptics in 2010 to host the survey. He didn’t say who they were.

This came as a surprise. Searches showed no messages from Lewandowsky. Several skeptic bloggers reported no receipt. Subsequently, others fished out the survey emails. It was realized they were sent under assistant Charles Hanich’s name.The bloggers contacted each other and dug up the emails rapidly.

This was summarized on Jo Nova’s blog and other venues on a running basis.

A day before this, a post appeared on the Shaping Tomorrow’s World blog. In it, Lewandowsky posted names of the sceptical bloggers whom he sent survey requests to.

Steve McIntyre shows evidence Lewandowsky published the post after skeptics announced receipt of survey emails but backdated it. This would make it appear as though his post contributed to the bloggers finding the survey emails.

The Lewandowsky group rely on this chronology. The Fury paper states the names of the bloggers “…became publicly available on 10th September 2012, on a blog post by the first author of LOG12”. ‘LOG12’s first author is Lewandowsky.

Except, according to McIntyre’s analysis, the post was actually published on the 11th of September and not the 10th, but made to appear so.

The ‘Moon and Fury’ saga is now no more in the realm of a science debate. There are three occasions involving Lewandowsky and his group where they have been directly confronted:

  1. false representation involving quoted material in the suspended ‘Fury’ paper
  2. non-posting of survey at skepticalscience.com, and yet making calculations on its basis, in the ‘Moon’ paper
  3. apparent fabrication of blog dates and use of alleged backdated material to make claims in the ‘Fury’ paper

¹as of this writing.



  1. Pingback: These items caught my eye – 4 August 2013 | grumpydenier
  2. Jo Nova

    Shub, what also matters is that the timing makes it appear skeptics fit his “denier” delusion. He is pretending that we weren’t doing everything possible to find the truth. Of course, skeptics were honestly searching — but Lewandowsky was deceptive, by writing to alarmist bloggers in his name, and asking an unknown staffer to send it to skeptics without even mentioning him at all. Skeptics were obviously looking for his name, not someone who wasn’t even named in the Lew, Ober…, Gignac paper.

    In the end skeptics found five names before anyone saw Lewandowsky’s post. As it happens I got five emails about his post that day, all of them well after Roy Spencer and Marc Morano had found their emails from 2010, and let me know, and I and Steve McIntyre had updated our pages.

  3. Pingback: The mystery of missing elements in Lewandowsky’s blog bluffery | The View From Here
  4. hunter

    Excellent summary of what is apaprently a Gleick-esque example of AGW deception. When one looks at the long list of AGw deceptions, noble frauds, ‘big picture fibbing’, and the rest, the actual evidence the AGw fanatics have starts looking slim indeed. The fixation, if not outright obsession, of AGW fanatics to make AGW skepticism a sort of pathology or crime or social faux pas reveals a vanishingly small minded outlook. When their little games are disassembled, as is Lewadowsky’s here, and Gleick’s earlier, what is seen behind the curtain is not even an old circus huckster stuck in Oz, but rather just cowardly pathetic little creeps.